Addressing threats to health care's core values, especially those stemming from concentration and abuse of power. Advocating for accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in leadership and governance of health care.

Tuesday, November 05, 2013

A New, and Huge ($2.2 Billion) Settlement for Johnson and Johnson, but "No Individuals were Charged with Wrongdoing"

The march of legal settlements made by big health care organizations has resumed with a bang. As reported in most major media outlets, giant drug/ device/ biotechnology company Johnson and Johnson has made a big settlement with the US Department of Justice.

Johnson & Johnson agreed to resolve
criminal and civil probes into the marketing of Risperdal, an
antipsychotic drug, and other medicines by paying more than
$2.2 billion, one of the largest U.S. health-fraud penalties.

J&J’s Janssen unit will plead guilty to a misdemeanor
criminal charge over misbranding Risperdal for uses not approved
by the Food and Drug Administration, including treating elderly
patients with dementia. Under a plea agreement announced today,
Janssen will pay a $334 million fine and forfeit $66 million.

Janssen also settled civil claims that it marketed
Risperdal without approval for the elderly, children and the
mentally disabled, and that it paid kickbacks to physicians and
to Omnicare Inc., the largest pharmacy for nursing homes. The
civil accord covered off-label marketing of Risperdal; Invega,
another antipsychotic; and Natrecor, a heart drug.

This settlement covered conduct that health care professionals ought to find particularly disturbing, including marketing Risperdal for elderly people with dementia without an approved indication, despite evidence that it could be particularly harmful to those patients; marketing Risperdal to adolescent boys without an indication, again despite evidence that it could be particularly harmful to those patients; and using kickbacks to market Risperdal.

Prosecutors alleged that J&J's Janssen
Pharmaceuticals unit promoted Risperdal to elderly patients suffering from
dementia, despite no approval for that use. Prosecutors also alleged that
J&J's 'ElderCare' sales force pushed Risperdal for use in these elderly
patients, and sales representatives' bonus awards failed to distinguish
prescriptions for schizophrenia or the unapproved dementia use.

In 2005, the FDA required the label warn that elderly
patients suffering from dementia-related psychosis were at a higher risk of
death.

Johnson & Johnson officials tried to expand the market for Risperdal
to older dementia patients soon after the drug was approved in 1993 to
treat symptoms of psychiatric disorders, according to federal court filings.

The drug, whose generic name is risperidone, was primarily tested in
schizophrenia patients, and the Federal Drug Administration repeatedly
rejected efforts by the company to expand the drug’s use to older
dementia patients, according to the filings.

But Johnson & Johnson, federal officials said, actively pursued the
market for geriatric patients. The company created a dedicated sales
force, ElderCare, to promote the drug and others to doctors who
primarily treated older patients.

The drug, the company claimed, could address symptoms that made treating
these patients a challenge, especially in a nursing home setting,
including agitation, confusion, hostility and impulsiveness. The
company’s sales brochures highlighted these symptoms and minimized the
fact that the drug was approved to treat schizophrenia, according to
federal documents.

Federal officials said the company knew that Risperdal posed serious
health risks for older adults, like an increased risk of strokes, but it
played them down. The drug’s label was later updated to warn against
the use of the drug in older patients with dementia.

So the allegations were that the company pursued an elaborate and deceptive strategy to promote the drug for elderly dementia patients despite knowledge that the drug was particularly risky for such patients.

Prosecutors also alleged that J&J promoted Risperdal for use by boys suffering from mental disabilities despite knowing that use could raise levels of a hormone stimulating breast development.

The NYT added,

Federal prosecutors also say, as part of the civil settlement, that
Johnson & Johnson promoted the use of Risperdal in people with
mental disabilities and children, even though the company did not
receive F.D.A. approval to market to children until 2006. Janssen told
its sales representatives to visit child psychologists and mental health
facilities that mainly focused on children, promoting the drug as a
safe treatment for disorders like attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, the government said.

Johnson & Johnson knew that children were susceptible to certain
health risks from taking Risperdal, including the possibility that boys
could develop breasts through elevated production of the hormone
prolactin, federal officials said.

Again, the allegations were that the company pursued an elaborate deceptive strategy to market the drug for children despite knowledge that the drug was particularly risky for such patients.

No Executives were Discomfited by the Disposition of This Case

The company took pains to emphasize that the settlement only required a single guilty plea to a misdemeanor by a company subsidiary, and did not involve any other admissions of guilt, or any penalties to specific human beings. For example, per Bloomberg/ Business Week,

'Today we reached closure on complex legal matters
spanning almost a decade,' Michael Ullmann, J&J’s general
counsel, said in a statement. 'This resolution allows us to
move forward and continue to focus on delivering innovative
solutions that improve and enhance the health and well-being of
patients around the world.'

While Janssen 'accepts accountability' for the actions
described in the misdemeanor plea, the civil settlement 'is not
an admission of any liability or wrongdoing, and the company
expressly denies the government’s civil allegations,' J&J said.

So why give up a perfectly good $2.2 billion (minus $400 million fine and forfeiture by the Janssen subsidiary for the single misdemeanor)? Was "closure" all that valuable?

In addition, in the NY Times we found ,

Ernie Knewitz, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, noted that the
misdemeanor charge was being entered on behalf of the company and no
individuals were charged with wrongdoing. 'Mr. Gorsky [current CEO] has been an outstanding Johnson & Johnson leader for more than 20 years,' he
said.

Would you expect someone who works for Mr Gorsky to say otherwise? Yet it was on Mr Gorsky's watch that much of the alleged bad conduct actually happened.

Alex Gorsky was promoted to chief executive officer of J&J in April 2012, in part because of his record of generating sales as leader of Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

Furthermore, the Inquirer noted that Mr Gorsky was deposed in one of the many civil lawsuits filed by patients against Johnson and Johnson.

The 60-page transcript of Gorsky's deposition in one of the Philadelphia suits was part of the publicly available court record. In the transcript, McCormick walks Gorsky through discussions from 2001 with Joseph Biederman, a Harvard medical school professor and a Massachusetts General Hospital pediatric psychiatrist who gained fame - and criticism - for advocating the use of pharmaceuticals to treat children with perceived mental illness. That was before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved, in still-limited ways, drugs such as Risperdal for children.

In a one-page letter dated Dec. 7, 2001, Biederman requested $500,000 to start what became the Johnson & Johnson Center for the Study of Pediatric Psychopathology. Gorsky said in the deposition that he approved that payment.

Gorsky was asked whether he had been hoping Biederman and, by extension, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard, would help J&J to get wider diagnosis and treatment for child and adolescent mental disorders.
'I think our goal was to, yes, have better diagnostic criteria for children who are in need of treatment and to have better therapeutic options for children who are in need of treatment,' Gorsky said.

Also in the transcript, McCormick discussed with Gorsky a document called the 'Annual Report 2002: The Johnson & Johnson Center for Pediatric Psychopathology at Massachusetts General Hospital.' Biederman was the director of the center, and one of the goals of its research, according to the report, was that 'it will move forward the commercial goals of J&J.'

Thus this testimony seems to imply that current Johnson and Johnson CEO Gorsky was involved in making large payments to an important key opinion leader (KOL) who was supposed to use his academic gravitas to "move forward the commercial goals" of Johnson and Johnson, specifically by promoting Risperdal for children.

Yet, as we discussed above, neither Mr Gorsky nor any other person at Johnson and Johnson who might have authorized, directed, or implemented the alleged conduct which was the subject of the settlement, conduct which Johnson and Johnson of course denies was misconduct, suffered any negative consequences.

Mr Gorsky's total compensation as CEO in 2012 was $10,977,109 according too the company's 2013 proxy statement. The retiring CEO, William Weldon, on whose overall watch the alleged events occurred, received $29,838,259 that year. We last discussed their compensation and its contrast with the company's ethical track record here.

These payments also occurred despite all the other settlements Johnson and Johnson has had to make because of allegations about its marketing of Risperdal. As described by Bloomberg/ Businessweek,

The settlement won’t resolve suits brought by attorneys general in Arkansas, Louisiana and South Carolina, where the company has appealed or has said it will appeal judgments over Risperdal sales.

Judges or juries in those states have ordered J&J to pay a total of about $1.8 billion in damages and fines over Risperdal marketing campaigns that were found to have misled doctors and patients about the drug’s health risks and effectiveness.

In 2012, a judge in Arkansas ordered the drugmaker to pay $1.2 billion in fines over Risperdal marketing. That verdict came three months after J&J decided to end a trial in Texas over the drug’s sales with a $158 million settlement. The Arkansas judge also awarded the state $180 million in attorney fees, J&J said in an August regulatory filing. The company is appealing the judgment.

In June 2011, a judge in South Carolina ordered J&J to pay $327 million in penalties for deceptively marketing the medicine. Ten months earlier, jurors in Louisiana ordered the drugmaker to pay almost $258 million to state officials over J&J’s Risperdal marketing campaign in the state. A Louisiana judge later ordered the drugmaker to pay an additional $73.3 million in attorney fees and costs.

The payments further occurred despite a previous settlement involving another drug whose marketing was at issue in the current settlement, according to Bloomberg / Businessweek,

In October 2011, J&J’s Scios unit pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation over Natrecor and paid an $85 million criminal fine.

Finally, the compensation was given despite other legal actions not having to do with Risperdal, Invega or Natrecor, as we most recently summarized,
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010 (look here)
- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by J+J's DePuy subsidiary (look here)
- Accusations that the company, which makes smoking cessation products,
participated along with tobacco companies in efforts to lobby state
legislators (see post here)

Summary

The latest settlement in the parade is another marker of the sort of conduct that big health care organizations have exhibited to increase revenue, and to use that revenue as a rationale for making their top insiders very rich. The particular conduct alleged here could have put patients at risk, partly by deceiving health care professionals. Yet in their wisdom, top US law enforcement saw fit not to try to hold any individuals accountable for this conduct, and allowed the company to deny any misconduct other than a single misdemeanor by a subsidiary. This occurred despite the company's history of multiple legal settlements and findings of guilt in various courtrooms.

Yet none of these actions has resulted in any negative consequences for any individual within the company. No one who authorized, directed, or implemented bad behavior will pay any penalty, even were the bad behavior to have lead to significant personal enrichment.

As we have said ad infinitum, and on the occasion of a previous Johnson and Johnson settlement, many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent
records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their
leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become
extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money
from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results
of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care
organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed
"royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone
to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and
ongoing international financial disaster (look here).
The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care
organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future
appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent. As
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I
exhort state, federal (and international, for that matter) law
enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

As we have said before, true health care reform would make leaders of
health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad
behavior.

J&J closes out the escrow fund set aside for this
settlement. Alex Gorsky goes to his West Point Anniversaries and Boy
Scout Board meetings an ongoing success story [shoveling…]. And what was this all about?

Until more meaningful penalties and the prospect of jail time for
company heads who are responsible for such activity become common,
companies will continue defrauding the government and putting patients’
lives in danger.

2 comments:

100% right and where GSK's $3 billion+ fine was just an expense as they reputedly made $11 billion profit even after the fine on the drugs that they had sold and implicated.

Not really unusual when you knowwhere most of these vast pharmaceutical companies have their roots - http://foolscrow.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/return-to-nuremberg-big-pharma-must-answer-for-crimes-against-humanity/

Contributors

Contact Us

Email: info at firmfound dot org
or go to the web-site for FIRM - the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine

More About FIRM and Health Care Renewal

FIRM - the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine is a 501(c)3 that researches problems with leadership and governance in health care that threaten core values, and disseminates our findings to physicians, health care researchers and policy-makers, and the public at large. FIRM advocates representative, transparent, accountable and ethical health care governance, and hopes to empower health care professionals and patients to promote better health care leadership.

FIRM depends on contributions from individuals and non-profit organizations. FIRM does not accept any direct support from for-profit health care corporations.

FIRM welcomes support from individuals and non-profit organizations. If you are interested in donating to FIRM, please email info at firmfound dot org, snail mail us at 16 Cutler St, Suite 104, Warren, RI, 02885, USA, or see our web-site.

Upcoming Meetings and Events

Subscribe To Health Care Renewal

Policies: Blog Roll and Comments

Our blogroll is meant to include blogs that provide interesting content relevant to what we write. It is not an endorsement in any way of any specific blog.

We accept comments, especially from registered Blogger users. If you do not wish to register with Blogger, we will accept anonymous comments, although prefer that they contain identification of the commenter.

We encourage thoughtful comments relevant to the issues brought up by the posts on Health Care Renewal.

All comments are moderated. We will reject spam, profanity, advertising of products or services not directly related to the content of this blog.

We will reject any unsubstantiated accusations or allegations.

Nonetheless, all comments represent only the opinions of those making them. The appearance of comments does not imply endorsement by the Health Care Renewal bloggers.

Please email general comments about the blog, other concerns, or questions to info AT firmfound DOT org